MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Tenant Cannot Dictate Landlord’s Choice: Delhi High Court Upholds Eviction for Landlord’s Bonafide Need

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a decision, the Delhi High Court, led by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jasmeet Singh, upheld an eviction order under Section 14(1)€ of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, reinforcing the principle that a landlord’s bonafide need must be respected and the tenant cannot impose their standards on the suitability of the premises.

The case, involving the eviction of Shop No. 1 in Green Park, New Delhi, revolved around the landlord’s requirement to utilize the property for starting a consultancy and a boutique for his wife. The Court meticulously analyzed the facts and legal aspects, ultimately finding the landlord’s need to be bonafide and justified.

Justice Singh’s observation was pivotal in the ruling: “The landlord’s subjective choice of choosing one accommodation out of the others available with him has to be respected by the Court. The Court cannot compel the landlord to choose another accommodation to satisfy his said need.” This statement underlines the respect for a landlord’s autonomy in decisions regarding their property.

The Court also clarified the scope of a tenant’s right to challenge the landlord’s need for the property. It was noted that the tenant’s role does not extend to questioning the landlord’s choice of business or the specific premises they find suitable for their purposes. The landlord’s right to choose the most suitable premises for their intended business was emphasized, especially when the choice is made with a clear business rationale, as in the case of choosing a front-facing shop in a market for better visibility.

The judgment also touched on the principles of estoppel in property law, where a tenant is estopped from disputing the landlord’s ownership after acknowledging it through actions such as paying rent.

Date of Decision: November 22, 2023

RAJNI BAHL (SINCE DECEASED) THR LRS VS ARUN KUMAR NAYYAR        

Latest Legal News